"Moonscape" by Paolo Attivissimo = Apollo 11 Moonwalk in HD!

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Here's with another interesting thread about Moon:


Moonscape – The Apollo 11 Moonwalk in HD




Trailer: vimeo.com...

Full high-definition documentary: moonscapemovie.blogspot.ch...
edit on 9-9-2012 by theitalian because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Thanks for this.

S + F





Edit: more smileys were needed.
edit on 9-9-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Interesting topic, but I must ask why nobody has been back since Dec of 1972? I guess no one including the U.S., Russia & China has any interest in a manned moon landing anymore. I guess it must be chalked up to the fact that technology hasn't increased since 1972.

I'm not implying anything towards a hoax, but it is something that does not add up. One thing that really does not make sense is the Russians. They were winning the "space race" until the Apollo missions, and then it seems like they lost interest since they would have been second to land men on the moon.

I guess NASA learned everything there is to know about the moon with the six manned landings and then shared all the information with the (then) USSR???


Nearly 40 years later since Apollo 17 and nobody can or wants to do it? Wernher von Braun must have been the only one brilliant enough to accomplish this with the Saturn V based on WWII Nazi technology.


I just don't get it and it does not add up.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardoom
 

I suppose because it would cost a huge amount of money, and nobody (the Russians and Chinese included) have not yet found a reason to make such a large monetary commitment.

China may consider doing it to show the world that they are a major technological player on the world stage -- which could result in global corporations seeing China as a place to invest (rather than as a third-world country, as it was thought of just a few decades ago).

I don't see Russia having a reason to do it. They can show their technological know-how in other ways (as could China, frankly). I don't see the U.S. committing the financial resources to the moon when they see sending humans to Mars as a possibility. They would want to save that money for mars, whether the U.S. does mars alone, or (more likely) does it in cooperation with other nations. No matter what, it will still be a HUGE bill for the U.S.


...and OP -- nice thread!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardoom
I'm not implying anything towards a hoax, but it is something that does not add up. One thing that really does not make sense is the Russians. They were winning the "space race" until the Apollo missions, and then it seems like they lost interest since they would have been second to land men on the moon.

Their N1 rocket failed every single time they tried to launch it. That was their best chance for a successful manned lunar program. The Saturn V, by contrast, made it to orbit every time it was launched. Whereas the Saturn V used several large and very powerful engines, the N1 tried to use a large cluster of smaller engines. The plumbing turned out to be too complex and fragile. Four launches, all ended in failure before first stage separation.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I've watched the 'contact light' segment and I have to say it is awesome watching the landing in real time.

Highly recommended



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by theitalian
 


Italians DO IT BETTER!

Excellent work!

Fantastic.
S&F.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardoom
 


Von Braun developed a true space ship but could not use it.
I wonder myself if he wanted to go along with rockets but you see him with Walt
Disney in the 1950s with his proposed rockets and methodology of going into
orbit and drifting to the Moon.

The true space ship would be just too powerful to acknowledge to the masses and
the policy makers since 1945 had to allow the rocket scenario. But there was always
Disney Studio as backup with perhaps the best equipment on Earth such as now the
space mission have such great graphics.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 

Von Braun's huge rockets were certainly technologically feasible, but very, very expensive.

For example, Von Braun originally envisioned the Apollo mission be done with a single huge rocket -- a single craft that would cruise to the Moon, land on the Moon, take off from the Moon, and return to Earth (sort of like those old black-and-white space movies where an entire tall rocket backs its way down to a landing on the Moon).

Von Braun was smart enough to realize that his vision would never be financially feasible, and actually chose the "orbit-rendezvous" method (with a command module and a separate lunar module) that was suggested by someone else over his own original idea. The Apollo mission would have never happened using Von Braun's original intentions, because it would have been just too damn expensive.

Certainly if money were no object, spacecraft would be different. However, that's not the reality of the situation, and Von Braun was smart enough to know this.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardoom
 


The Apollo program was ended so that the Shuttle program could begin. And the Shuttle program was very expensive and demanding. Then there was the matter of building various space stations, culminating in the ISS.

Russia abandoned the plans to go to the Moon because the Americans got there first. They decided to concentrate on Mars instead, but of course the costs and technical issues meant it was eventually scrapped.

The Apollo program was a daring push with no expenses spared, and the fact that there were a total of 6 landings is a remarkable achievement in itself. Governments and space agenciens are more comfortable staying in the Earth's orbit.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by theitalian
 

Thanks for posting this. It took me a while to watch it.

I was a little surprised by what I saw. They completed the moon walk, went back in the LM and for some reason didn't eject their backpacks at that point, but instead they pressurized the spacecraft. Then they performed some tasks, and then depressurised the craft and tossed out their backpacks, and had to repressurize again.

I'm not sure why they didn't just toss out the backpacks before they repressurized the first time.

But it was pretty cool that the seismic sensors they deployed detected the backpacks hitting the surface! I guess they were pretty sensitive!

I'm a little miffed at NASA for destroying the original recordings. I'm sure those would have been much better, but they are lost forever. Too bad.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
...I was a little surprised by what I saw. They completed the moon walk, went back in the LM and for some reason didn't eject their backpacks at that point, but instead they pressurized the spacecraft. Then they performed some tasks, and then depressurised the craft and tossed out their backpacks, and had to repressurize again.

I'm not sure why they didn't just toss out the backpacks before they repressurized the first time...


They needed to re-pressurize for a short time to disconnect their spacesuits from the bapckpacks (called PLSS) and connect the suits to the LEM's internal life support. When they opened the hatch to toss out the PLSS packs, their suits were connected to the LEM life support.

I think this is how the procedure works:

- Re-enter depressurized LEM after the moon walk.
- Close the hatch and re-pressurize LEM.
- At this point, it is safe to disconnect from the PLSS backpack, and then hook their suits up to the LEM's internal life support.
- Depressurize the LEM
- Open the hatch and toss out the PLSS packs.
- Close the hatch, re-pressurize, and disconnect their spacesuits form the LEM life support.


edit on 9/11/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

I figured there must be a reason like that, thanks for the explanation.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join